The inclusion criteria is off.
“ Sites verified eligibility criteria including age 30 years or older, confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 10 days, and 2 or more symptoms of acute COVID-19 for 7 days or less from enrollment. ”
Those who were confirmed with SARS 10 days ago were eligible, when the outcome is a resolution qualified as 3 c…
“ Sites verified eligibility criteria including age 30 years or older, confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 10 days, and 2 or more symptoms of acute COVID-19 for 7 days or less from enrollment. ”
Those who were confirmed with SARS 10 days ago were eligible, when the outcome is a resolution qualified as 3 consecutive days without symptoms after starting the treatment (or placebo).
Without details on the mean “starting point” of both groups (ie how many days from first symptoms), these findings are meaningless. The inclusion criteria needed to be within three days of initial symptoms AND a positive SARS test.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria is the easiest way to cheat a clinical study, and that’s what they did. Frustrating.
The Faucist crowd have been phonies so long and studies and trials so poorly designed it is a waste of time to even consider them. Don’t spend a minute to look at them.
While it is broadly true that these studies lack the credibility and epistemic trustworthiness we generally associate with "good science", we still must take the time to digest both their methods and their conclusions--not because we accept those conclusions but because it is imperative we be able to refute those conclusions.
If we do not take the time to arm ourselves with the requisite information, we have no means to push back against the Faucist narrative.
Facts, evidence, and data are the best weapons against propaganda, especially Faucist anti-science propaganda. As this study illustrates, the weapons that best undermine the Faucist narrative are the Faucists' own facts from their own study.
The inclusion criteria is off.
“ Sites verified eligibility criteria including age 30 years or older, confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 10 days, and 2 or more symptoms of acute COVID-19 for 7 days or less from enrollment. ”
Those who were confirmed with SARS 10 days ago were eligible, when the outcome is a resolution qualified as 3 consecutive days without symptoms after starting the treatment (or placebo).
Without details on the mean “starting point” of both groups (ie how many days from first symptoms), these findings are meaningless. The inclusion criteria needed to be within three days of initial symptoms AND a positive SARS test.
Inclusion/exclusion criteria is the easiest way to cheat a clinical study, and that’s what they did. Frustrating.
The Faucist crowd have been phonies so long and studies and trials so poorly designed it is a waste of time to even consider them. Don’t spend a minute to look at them.
While it is broadly true that these studies lack the credibility and epistemic trustworthiness we generally associate with "good science", we still must take the time to digest both their methods and their conclusions--not because we accept those conclusions but because it is imperative we be able to refute those conclusions.
If we do not take the time to arm ourselves with the requisite information, we have no means to push back against the Faucist narrative.
Facts, evidence, and data are the best weapons against propaganda, especially Faucist anti-science propaganda. As this study illustrates, the weapons that best undermine the Faucist narrative are the Faucists' own facts from their own study.